Washington Nationals face FAA fine for using drone to take promo pictures

Flood gates for small drones open with ruling that makes way for commercial use.

Small drones like this DJI Cinedrone could soon be buzzing around stadiums to get your close-up for the Jumbotron.

Last week, Major League Baseball fined the Boston Red Sox for not putting enough of its regular roster on the field for a spring training game. The Washington Nationals now face a fine of a different sort, for using a different sort of player during spring training—the team may face a penalty from the Federal Aviation Administration for using an unmanned aircraft to take promotional photos during a team practice.

When contacted by an Associated Press reporter regarding whether the team got FAA approval for use of the small drone, a team spokesperson said, “No, we didn’t get it cleared, but we don’t get our pop flies cleared either, and those go higher than this thing did.” But the team stopped flying the drone the next day—and team officials wouldn’t comment further.

Ars attempted to reach Kyle Brostowitz, the Nationals’ coordinator for baseball communications, but he did not reply to our requests for comment. A spokesperson for the FAA did not respond to inquiries regarding the Nationals or whether the FAA had contacted the team. But the FAA will soon be facing many more of these cases in the wake of a recent administrative court decision, in part thanks to the agency’s failure to issue a new set of rules on commercial drone use.

The FAA is in the midst of an appeal of the ruling by National Transportation Safety Board administrative judge Patrick Geraghty. In his findings in the FAA’s case against Team BlackSheep’s Raphael Pirker, Geraghty ruled that the FAA had no enforceable rules or regulations that could be used to classify small remote-controlled aircraft as unmanned aerial systems. The FAA’s interpretation of the rules, he said, could be applied to “a paper aircraft or toy balsa wood glider.”

That ruling has led a number of drone operators to open their doors for business. The husband-and-wife team of Terry and Belinda Kilby, who have produced aerial photography through a personal project called Elevated Element, have already formed a commercial drone services firm and have started bidding for commercial business as a result of the NTSB decision. CNN and other media companies are among the companies that have contacted them.

“We’d been following that case for a while,” Terry Kilby told Ars. “Once that ruling went through, we made the decision to pull the trigger. It still remains to be seen whether the ruling will hold, but we’re willing to take a risk... As things stand, we’re convinced there is no regulation. To be honest, we’re a little confused about why the FAA is still pursuing cases like these and not just working on getting a regulation out.”

After the Kilbys were featured in a Baltimore Sun article about the NTSB ruling, they were contacted within hours by their first potential customer. The advertising agency for MASN, the regional sports network owned by the Baltimore Orioles and the Washington Nationals, approached them for bids on aerial photography of Camden Yards.

Totally confused by the headline. Anyone care to attempt a translation?

It's an awkwardly worded attempt to evoke the archetypical image of a young baseball player inadvertently breaking his neighbor's window with a batted ball. Usually the neighbor is a scary, grumpy older person.

In this case, the Nationals, a professional baseball team, has incurred the ire of the FAA by operating an unlicensed drone.

it's kind of fuzzy, but it seems like the unaddressed problem here is that drones equipped with cameras can take pictures from a point of view not previously available. for some people under some circumstances this may be an actual invasion of privacy. because this represents a different set of issues than the safety-related stuff the FAA normally handles, they are at a loss for regulatory insight.

I'm a bit confused. The article indicates that the Nationals "face a fine" for using the drone, but then says that neither the FAA nor the Nationals have actually confirmed a fine was levied. So is the existence of the fine just based on the fact that the FAA has in the past levied fines and the Nationals stopped using the drone and didn't provide a comment as to why?

What precludes the possibility that the National's legal team just decided to shut it down, just to be safe and the FAA had no intention of fining them? (Or a myriad of other possible explanations).

"To be honest, we’re a little confused about why the FAA is still pursuing cases like these and not just working on getting a regulation out."

It's not that confusing. The FAA officials are waiting for their palms to be greased by the manufacturers of these and the businesses that want to use them. And also by the businesses that these would negatively impact. When the payouts are tallied, we'll get some regulations that reflect the tally. That's how regulation works in the US and I assume the rest of the world.

It would have been great to have had drones in the Olympics, following skiiers downhill from about 50 feet behind and 15 feet above.

The FAA has launched projects to look at the impact of drones in commercial airspace. Those studies will be done sometime this year or next, after which the FAA will issue regulations about drone use.

I really think these are the last days of freedom in our skies, from observation by drone hobbyists, teenage drone hackers and all kinds of commercial exploitation. Your backyard fence will not give you privacy anymore, nor will a second story window.

The one thing I am confused about is, I thought that so long as it was within your line of site and under operator control (as opposed to autonomous) the FAA wasn't generally considering something a drone.

You know, like most RC stuff.

That sounds like what the Nationals thing was, unlike the NTSB admin law judge decision, which was about something operated outside of the LoS of the operator (well outside).

The husband-and-wife team of Terry and Belinda Kilby, who have produced aerial photography through a personal project called Elevated Element, have already formed a commercial drone services firm and have started bidding for commercial business as a result of the NTSB decision.

you've completely missed the point of the administrative judge decision. autonomous drones are covered by the rule, but REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT are not.

so, i doubt Terry and Belinda have formed a commercial "drone" services firm. i bet they have instead formed a commercial "RC aircraft" services firm.

and, as others have pointed out, your title is just plain wrong. at best, you can correct it by saying that the nationals face an FAA fine for ALLEGEDLY using a drone. i would be very, very surprised if they did use a "drone" as defined by the administrative judge. much, much, much more likely they used an RC aircraft with a camera attached. so, the threatened? fine won't stick (if the nationals fight it).

... for some people under some circumstances this may be an actual invasion of privacy. because this represents a different set of issues than the safety-related stuff the FAA normally handles, they are at a loss for regulatory insight.

I think privacy is a fine thing to worry about in these cases. But as you show, it's not something the airspace regulators should be worrying about. Judges can apply existing laws, and lawmakers can adjust them if they need to be adjusted.

For now it seems the FAA is just saying that anything without a precedent is banned.

What exactly is the difference between a drone and a toy R/C plane? The latter have been around for years, but it's only now they're being referred to as drones.

I think autonomous capabilities are what determine if something is actually a true "drone"

an RC plane isn't really a drone as they don't have autonomous capability. The ability to program a flight plan into some of the newer copters is a bit of a grey area I think.

This isn't quite true. The FAA does not really make a distinction between a truly autonomous drone and a UAV that is controlled with a transmitter. The only distinction they make is "commerical use". Basically, you can have a fully autonomous drone with a camera, you just can't charge for using it, and you can't use it for any other commercial purpose, including trying to bend the rules by charging for "editing" or something similar.

However, while those rules did get overturned by the judge, the FAA has appealed, and there has been a stay of the previous judges ruling, so until the full NTSB rules, the rules are the same as before and people face fines and other penalties for breaking the rules.

The one thing I am confused about is, I thought that so long as it was within your line of site and under operator control (as opposed to autonomous) the FAA wasn't generally considering something a drone.

You know, like most RC stuff.

I don't think that "within line of site" is going to make it into upcoming FAA regulation of hobby UAVs. It seems a little too vague. For example, on the way into work this morning (7:30 am) I could see all the way to the moon. Technically, according to the letter of the law, any airspace between here an the moon would be in my "line of sight".

What exactly is the difference between a drone and a toy R/C plane? The latter have been around for years, but it's only now they're being referred to as drones.

My guess: R/C planes are in direct control of an operator, are limited to flying below a certain height and within line of sight of the operator. Drones have the ability to fly autonomously, with only waypoints being input by an operator.

I don't think that "within line of site" is going to make it into upcoming FAA regulation of hobby UAVs. It seems a little too vague. For example, on the way into work this morning (7:30 am) I could see all the way to the moon. Technically, according to the letter of the law, any airspace between here an the moon would be in my "line of sight".

Not exactly. You can only see the moon because it is very large and reflecting a lot of sunlight towards you, and even then only thanks to the absence of ambient light. You wouldn't be able to see a RC-sized object with the unaided eye at even a small fraction of that distance. All they really need to do is be clear that you actually need to be able to see the object that you are controlling.

The Washington Nationals now face a fine of a different sort...—the team may face a penalty from the Federal Aviation Administration for using an unmanned aircraft to take promotional photos during a team practice.

When contacted by an Associated Press reporter regarding whether the team got FAA approval for use of the small drone, ... But the team stopped flying the drone the next day—and team officials wouldn’t comment further.

Confusing to me that "unmanned aircraft" and "drone" are used interchangeably in the story, as it doesn't make clear what kind of remotely-piloted or autonomous rig was carrying the camera.

Interesting if the team owns the rig, and was not paying a contractor to do the filming/photography: would that still qualify as "commercial use" if the video/photos are intended for advertising/promotional use by the team?

Of course, there isn't any confirmation that the FAA is even considering fining the team... the entire articles is predicated on one word in the story:

Quote:

...the team may face a penalty from the Federal Aviation Administration...

What exactly is the difference between a drone and a toy R/C plane? The latter have been around for years, but it's only now they're being referred to as drones.

My guess: R/C planes are in direct control of an operator, are limited to flying below a certain height and within line of sight of the operator. Drones have the ability to fly autonomously, with only waypoints being input by an operator.

And yet most use of the word "drone", in the general press and here at ARS, is referring to a plain old R/C aircraft. The only real difference is now cameras are small enough for them to carry. But carrying a camera doesn't make it a drone. I wish it would stop. "Model Airplane News" and "R/C Modeler" aren't changing their names to "Drone News" and "Drone Modeler".

Now, if you can tell it to fly from Point A to Point B, and it can sense and avoid obstacles (houses, trees) along that path, then it's a drone.

This isn't quite true. The FAA does not really make a distinction between a truly autonomous drone and a UAV that is controlled with a transmitter. The only distinction they make is "commerical use". Basically, you can have a fully autonomous drone with a camera, you just can't charge for using it, and you can't use it for any other commercial purpose, including trying to bend the rules by charging for "editing" or something similar.

However, while those rules did get overturned by the judge, the FAA has appealed, and there has been a stay of the previous judges ruling, so until the full NTSB rules, the rules are the same as before and people face fines and other penalties for breaking the rules.

Yeahl it seems that commercial is the main difference. They really need to get the rules updated and let people start using it - for anyone who saw the latest Top Gear expedition, they used drones a lot to capture some great scenery. I've seen them used in other British shows as well.

What exactly is the difference between a drone and a toy R/C plane? The latter have been around for years, but it's only now they're being referred to as drones.

...

However, while those rules did get overturned by the judge, the FAA has appealed, and there has been a stay of the previous judges ruling, so until the full NTSB rules, the rules are the same as before and people face fines and other penalties for breaking the rules.

Except the whole problem is that there are no rules, the FAA hasnt't written them yet. So people are facing fines for treading on the regulator's toes.

Working for a large broadcast company, we are choosing not to fly them for now due to a couple reasons, first the whole is there a rule and will we be fined issue, which seems to vary on a case by case basis and can be costly to defend, and secondly there is the whole issue of liability insurance. Some of these things aren't exactly light, and if you crash it into someone on accident, due to mechanical failure etc, you could be liable for both civil and criminal penalties.

Until the rules are clear flying them over people/traffic etc, without rules and insurance to protect yourself is a very big gamble. Yes the vids that can be produced are cool, but there is way to much grey to gamble on right now. Don't be the guy causing a multi-car wreck on the interstate while attempting to get that shot you think is so awesome.

Add in that many of these have autonomous functions to return it to a set landing spot in case of loss of signal, and you could find yourself in violation of the rules, even when you think you aren't, or your not even using the feature, it simply being capable of it could put you in violation.

Working for a large broadcast company, we are choosing not to fly them for now due to a couple reasons, first the whole is there a rule and will we be fined issue, which seems to vary on a case by case basis and can be costly to defend, and secondly there is the whole issue of liability insurance. Some of these things aren't exactly light, and if you crash it into someone on accident, due to mechanical failure etc, you could be liable for both civil and criminal penalties.

Until the rules are clear flying them over people/traffic etc, without rules and insurance to protect yourself is a very big gamble. Yes the vids that can be produced are cool, but there is way to much grey to gamble on right now. Don't be the guy causing a multi-car wreck on the interstate while attempting to get that shot you think is so awesome.

Add in that many of these have autonomous functions to return it to a set landing spot in case of loss of signal, and you could find yourself in violation of the rules, even when you think you aren't, or your not even using the feature, it simply being capable of it could put you in violation.

Isn't it awesome that you can do something that harms no one, yet be in fear of prosecution by the government based on either vague or non-existent rules? Also something like an AR Drone with the "protective" hull and a GoPro weights something like 600 grams. That's not going to injure anyone under most conceivable circumstances given the volume of the thing. (yes, I've flown my AR Drone into myself and also had if fall on me) The Blade 2 weights about the same I think. You're much more likely to injure someone riding a bike in the city I would think, based on anecdotal evidence. And on the off chance that you do harm someone or violate their privacy there are already plenty of laws to address that. Sounds like the FAA has a surplus of manpower. Perhaps it's time to cut the budget...

How long I wonder before the first spectator gets minced by one of these?

While I'm not a big fan of excessive regulation - with "real" drones being susceptible to failure and hackjacking, I'd prefer not to worry if the camera buzzing around overhead is about to become a projectile blender...

As a long time radio control enthusiast, I've seen people put cameras on radio control helicopters/planes since ages before the term "UAV" even existed (about the same time I was deciding if a math co-processor was really necessary).

Since when does anyone need a license to put a camera on a remote control airplane/helicopter?

It's never been a problem before, and now that the government is in the game, there are restrictions and licenses required?WTH is going on here?

Working for a large broadcast company, we are choosing not to fly them for now due to a couple reasons, first the whole is there a rule and will we be fined issue, which seems to vary on a case by case basis and can be costly to defend, and secondly there is the whole issue of liability insurance. Some of these things aren't exactly light, and if you crash it into someone on accident, due to mechanical failure etc, you could be liable for both civil and criminal penalties.

Until the rules are clear flying them over people/traffic etc, without rules and insurance to protect yourself is a very big gamble. Yes the vids that can be produced are cool, but there is way to much grey to gamble on right now. Don't be the guy causing a multi-car wreck on the interstate while attempting to get that shot you think is so awesome.

Add in that many of these have autonomous functions to return it to a set landing spot in case of loss of signal, and you could find yourself in violation of the rules, even when you think you aren't, or your not even using the feature, it simply being capable of it could put you in violation.

Isn't it awesome that you can do something that harms no one, yet be in fear of prosecution by the government based on either vague or non-existent rules? Also something like an AR Drone with the "protective" hull and a GoPro weights something like 600 grams. That's not going to injure anyone under most conceivable circumstances given the volume of the thing. The Blade 2 weights about the same I think. You're much more likely to injure someone riding a bike in the city I would think, based on anecdotal evidence. And on the off chance that you do harm someone or violate their privacy there are already plenty of laws to address that. Sounds like the FAA has a surplus of manpower. Perhaps it's time to cut the budget...

Trust me, I wish they had something else to do, but they seem to be in a mood of making examples of folks right now, and bigger companies tend to make better examples. If they just put out a rule, all the other issues could be addressed.

As to the weight, most of the quadcopters we would be interested in using start at 3 pounds and go up from there. Those will be capable of causing injury. But if there are established rules, then people can come up with best practices and even establish insurance for the risk. But no one is going to insure what now can be listed as "illegal" whether it truly is or not. Hence the grey area we would rather avoid.

Working for a large broadcast company, we are choosing not to fly them for now due to a couple reasons, first the whole is there a rule and will we be fined issue, which seems to vary on a case by case basis and can be costly to defend, and secondly there is the whole issue of liability insurance. Some of these things aren't exactly light, and if you crash it into someone on accident, due to mechanical failure etc, you could be liable for both civil and criminal penalties.

Until the rules are clear flying them over people/traffic etc, without rules and insurance to protect yourself is a very big gamble. Yes the vids that can be produced are cool, but there is way to much grey to gamble on right now. Don't be the guy causing a multi-car wreck on the interstate while attempting to get that shot you think is so awesome.

Add in that many of these have autonomous functions to return it to a set landing spot in case of loss of signal, and you could find yourself in violation of the rules, even when you think you aren't, or your not even using the feature, it simply being capable of it could put you in violation.

Working for a large broadcast company, we are choosing not to fly them for now due to a couple reasons, first the whole is there a rule and will we be fined issue, which seems to vary on a case by case basis and can be costly to defend, and secondly there is the whole issue of liability insurance. Some of these things aren't exactly light, and if you crash it into someone on accident, due to mechanical failure etc, you could be liable for both civil and criminal penalties.

Until the rules are clear flying them over people/traffic etc, without rules and insurance to protect yourself is a very big gamble. Yes the vids that can be produced are cool, but there is way to much grey to gamble on right now. Don't be the guy causing a multi-car wreck on the interstate while attempting to get that shot you think is so awesome.

Add in that many of these have autonomous functions to return it to a set landing spot in case of loss of signal, and you could find yourself in violation of the rules, even when you think you aren't, or your not even using the feature, it simply being capable of it could put you in violation.

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.